On 4/23/2021 10:32 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
On 4/23/21 8:27 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:18 AM Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
change proposal replaces that policy with one where, given a good
technical reason, a packager may:
* Choose to build with their package with clang even if the upstream
project supports gcc.
* Choose to build with gcc even if upstream does not support it.
To be clear, does "given a good technical reason" imply that there is
some kind of approval process for this? Or that there's a way to
object to the compiler usage based on an insufficiently-good technical
reason?
Or is it just a way of saying "we trust you to exercise good judgment"?
I did not have in mind any kind of process for either approving the
technical justification or for auditing packages that had decided to
switch compilers to make sure their reasons are valid.
Nor did I when I made the original proposal. I'm of the opinion that we
should be
trusting the package maintainers and upstreams to make these kinds of
decisions.
I think it would be better to not have an approval process, but I would
rather have this proposal + an approval process than no proposal at all.
Agreed.
And just to be clear to the wider community. Tom asked to take over
pushing on
this proposal after I left Red Hat. I fully support that effort.
Thanks,
Jeff
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
